Melisa Richmond v. Rubab Huq
872 F.3d 355
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Melisa Richmond was jailed in Wayne County from Dec 26, 2012 to Feb 13, 2013 after a self-inflicted burn; hospital had prescribed twice-daily silvadene and dressings, Jail ordered once-daily dressing changes and pain meds.
- Richmond repeatedly complained (kites) that Jail staff missed dressing changes, missed Lortab doses, and did not provide her outpatient psychiatric meds (Prozac, Xanax) for ~17+ days before psychiatrist visit.
- After release Richmond required a skin graft for a portion of the burn that failed to heal; she also had diagnosed bipolar disorder and other psychiatric conditions.
- Richmond sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical and psychiatric needs against multiple Jail clinicians and Wayne County; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and found genuine issues of material fact as to deliberate indifference for several individual defendants and for municipal liability; some defendants’ summary judgments were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference to physical injury (missed dressings/pain meds) | Richmond: repeated missed dressing changes and missed pain doses despite orders caused needless pain and risk of harm | Defs: at most inadequate care or disagreements about medical judgment; treatment was provided | Court: summary judgment reversed as to several nurses and Medical Director Clafton (fact issues whether orders were ignored); some providers affirmed where no evidence they knew of noncompliance |
| Intentional infliction of pain (nurse scrubbing wound) | Richmond: Lonberger intentionally scrubbed wound causing unnecessary pain | Lonberger: painful cleaning may be medically necessary; no intent to inflict unnecessary pain | Court: summary judgment reversed as to Lonberger — jury question whether conduct was wanton/intentional |
| Failure to provide psychiatric medication promptly | Richmond: social workers and some nurses knew she had been on meds, scheduled outpatient track causing ~17-day gap, and did not verify or expedite meds | Defs: policy requires psychiatric evaluation before meds; inpatient admission was available if needed; no deliberate indifference | Court: summary judgment reversed as to social workers Myftari and Rucker and certain nurses (fact issues on knowledge and conduct); some clinicians (who saw her only at psychiatrist visit) affirmed |
| Municipal liability (Wayne County custom/policy) | Richmond: Jail practice/custom of relying on social worker screening, delaying verification/prescription of outside psych meds created unconstitutional policy | Defs: isolated or lawful policies; testimony insufficient to show municipal custom | Court: reversed summary judgment for Wayne County — material fact disputes whether practices constituted an official custom causing injuries |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Cartee, 817 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment and genuine issue standard)
- Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2001) (deliberate indifference includes psychiatric needs)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (subjective knowledge and disregard test for deliberate indifference)
- Blackmore v. Kalamazoo Cty., 390 F.3d 890 (6th Cir. 2004) (what constitutes objectively serious medical need)
- Boretti v. Wiscomb, 930 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1991) (interruption of prescribed treatment and needless pain can show deliberate indifference)
- Asplugh v. McConnell, 643 F.3d 162 (6th Cir. 2011) (courts defer to medical judgments but treatment so inadequate may be no treatment)
- Terrance v. Northville Reg'l Psychiatric Hosp., 286 F.3d 834 (6th Cir. 2002) (municipal liability and deliberate indifference principles)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (U.S. 2011) (Monell municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability under § 1983)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity framework)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (objective qualified immunity standard)